Village Issues

The Board is authorizing up to $206K of new borrowing because the sewer fund couldn't make its own bond payment from cash. The deeper reason isn't a deficit — it's that the fund has no documented reserve target. Sizes three defensible policy ranges (operating cushion, repair contingency, capital reserve contribution) against GFOA and small-utility best practice, and frames what the budget-note repayment plan should commit the Board to.

Mayor Smythe has known the $205,430 GF advance was due May 31, 2026 since authorizing it in February. The FY 26-27 budget she proposed and the Board adopted contains no allocation toward repayment. On May 11 — the date the Treasurer's repayment plan was due — the Board instead authorized $206K in additional emergency borrowing.

The DMR forms the village submits to NYSDEC are missing data, quantized to round numbers, and inconsistent with regional rainfall. Sludge invoices don't say what triggered the pump or which plant was emptied. Trustees and DEC are paying for and regulating against unreliable records.

FY 25-26 sludge budget was $5,500; latest projected actual is $60,837 — driven by frequent emergency pump-outs the operator describes as rainwater removal. The data does not support that explanation.

The sewer fund relies on a $205K General Fund advance to balance — is that a one-time gap or a structural deficit? Hold-rates scenarios + cash-flow projections.

Village runs the police department; Town and Tivoli buy service via shared-services agreements. Existing analysis weighs the contract terms against actual costs.